[ManuH]

What is meant by K-7 IQ being just average ? real IQ, or therotetical ?....are you guys saying you are seeing differences in IQ between D300 and the k-7 below iso 3200 shooting in RAW ? therotical or otherwise ?

Look at every review out there. The K-7 is hampered by its low dynamic range. That's why ISO > 1600 is not that good either because 3200 and 6400 are just digitally pushed by one or two stops. In a lot of situations it doesn't really matter but as soon as you have to hit that limit the K-7 is just not as good as the competition, K-x included.

That said some people exaggerate this issue as if the camera wasn't capable of good pictures. Fortunately a lot of good features make up for this slight IQ difference. For example, I also have the K-x. But to tell the truth unless I'll have to work in difficult lighting situations I much prefer the K-7 for its handling. Often the absence of TAv makes the K-x perform worse for the final picture than the K-7. The K-x is not as good in low-light AF, the K-7 performs more consistently, and it's not only because of the AF assist lamp.

[pcarfan]

Manu, I see what you mean. Thanks!

[CWyatt]

I hate to say this. But my K-7 sits my bag and is never used anymore. It is a great design but the sensor sucks. I now use my K-x exclusively. Bummer....

This is a massive generalisation. I find the sensor just fine. If Pentax had the K-x and no K-7 I would've switched systems by now. The K-7 is a much superior camera for what I need. It's my overall favourite 'cropped-sensor' DSLR currently available from any brand at any price.

[garyk]

Maybe I should of said. For the kind of photography i enjoy. The k-x is better suited for the job.

I can't tell the difference in AF in low light between the k-x and the k-7. i have some shots in almost total darkness using a flash and extender. Both the same subject and the k-x in my case is just as good as the k-7. Maybe i have a bad copy of the k-7.
Only grip i have on the k-x is no cross hair for the focus. But that little sucker hits just as consistenly as the k-7. And my keeper rate doubled with the k-x because of the IQ. I think i will send my k-7 in to pentax for a check up. After reading this maybe i do have a bad copy.

---

Last edited by garyk; 08-28-2010 at 03:50 PM.

[ManuH]

And my keeper rate doubled with the k-x because of the IQ. I think i will send my k-7 in to pentax for a check up. After reading this maybe i do have a bad copy.

Could also that my copy of the K-x is not as good... I'm actually investigating that possibility. I'm wondering if it's not the tungsten problem that was affecting older bodies as well. My K-7 as far as I can tell is not affected by tungsten light and I've been surprised by its accuracy, even wide open with a FA 50 f/1.4 or FA 77 f/1.8.

[HeavyD]

I went to read the review and got this:

Sorry the comparison test that you are looking for has been taken down due to inconsistencies in the review procedure. You may like to look at our individual review of the Pentax K7

[garyk]

I also saw the test had been taken down now.
I love the k-7 design. Man it is so easy to configure on the fly. I love it. I shoot almost exclusivly in manual now.

Manu, i shoot only in the out doors. I don't think i have ever taken a pic with the pentax indoors. So your review is probibly right. I only have an interest in the outdoors. And never take my camera out of the bag unless i am shooting wildlife. I am trying to curb my personal comments on my personal dislike for the k-7 because i think in other situations it is probibly a very good camera.

I hope they build the next cameras to the same quality of the k-7. And put in a sensor that i can use for my type of photography.

I wish i could afford a few different brands. I would love to know the difference.

Now I am going to wait until the next round of cameras comes out. And try to sift thru the reports to find out if it is worth changing. I sure have my fingers crossed.

If not i will stay with the k-x. I am so pleased with the k-x It is going to have to be a kick ass camera before i change now. Thats my game plan for now.

---

Last edited by garyk; 08-28-2010 at 07:04 PM.

[dandog]

sounds like pentax needs to make a camera that will find the perfect shot for you,meter perfectly everytime under all conditions for you,it will also change lenses automatically,the sensor will be absolutely perfect,no noise at iso25600000000! it will have no manual focus selection(because who uses manual focus in low light anyway?)it will be the perfect camera........how boring.

[CWyatt]

I went to read the review and got this:

Sorry the comparison test that you are looking for has been taken down due to inconsistencies in the review procedure. You may like to look at our individual review of the Pentax K7

See the rest of the thread.

[Uluru]

I love the build quality and ergonomics but I'm beyond frustrated with underexposed shots like in this review. It is for this reason I don't recommend Pentax when asked by friends. I hope what ever new comes out doesn't have this same pitfall.

Underexposure depends on many factors, and although I concur that Pentax cameras tend to (deliberately?) underexposure, I still think users should have enough brains to recognise this after a few dozens shots. They can advise their friends they need to 1) test each lens first, and 2) learn to understand the behaviour of light and why underexposure is often better than even incidental overexposure.
If they understand that, then they can use any camera they'd like, and also see the advantages of using brains vs not using it. I like my friends make their own decisions, not me recommending them one brand or another. It goes along that old proverb about catching someone a fish, or teaching them how to fish.

[Uluru]

Look at every review out there. The K-7 is hampered by its low dynamic range. That's why ISO > 1600 is not that good either because 3200 and 6400 are just digitally pushed by one or two stops. In a lot of situations it doesn't really matter but as soon as you have to hit that limit the K-7 is just not as good as the competition, K-x included.

That said some people exaggerate this issue as if the camera wasn't capable of good pictures. Fortunately a lot of good features make up for this slight IQ difference. For example, I also have the K-x. But to tell the truth unless I'll have to work in difficult lighting situations I much prefer the K-7 for its handling. Often the absence of TAv makes the K-x perform worse for the final picture than the K-7. The K-x is not as good in low-light AF, the K-7 performs more consistently, and it's not only because of the AF assist lamp.

Leica M9 has very similar ISO issues as the K-7, for example. After ISO 1600 it also produces 'noisy' images but no one is taking it so seriously not to recommend it as the premium photography tool. You must stay in queue to get one.
Once many newbies settle down their ISO demons and understand that photography life is often a much greater sum than all of its ingredients combined, there could still be hope for them.
One thing is always certain: people will always find a perfect new excuse to trash a perfect chance to push their creativity beyond commodity, but won't do it because they're not serious about it and don't know what it entails. That is because it's the mentality of a consumer who has investment in gear, and the photography is just an excuse for such an investment. Can't blame them -- it's the world of whiners we've created.
When a perfect camera that delivers clean ISO 1 million comes, but only with 7fps, there'll be a problem because they'd actually need 8 fps at least.
And so on.

[CWyatt]

Very valid points made in above post.

If you think your photography would be better because your camera is slightly less noisy at ISO 3200 or 6400 than another camera, it's not the case. As far as I can see, almost all modern cameras are remarkably capable. The biggest difference for me is in what people consider only passingly important (if you take 9/10 of reviews as a basis for what people care about) - user control, shutter noise, overall size, good viewfinder.

I'm not saying low-noise 6400 wouldn't be good - that'd be great - but it seems a lot of people are hanging onto future cameras' IQ to make their photography improve, which will not happen.

It's becoming a cliche to say it, but look at what Cartier-Bresson used - what we would now consider belongs in a museum - to get some of the greatest shots in the history of photography. Gary Stochl uses the same 60's Leica as he has since the 60's.

Personally, I like my AF and higher-ISO's, so I'm interested in the new digital stuff. But the emphasis on it from many strikes me as misplaced.

[robgo2]

Best review to date? It's an error-riddled mess, that does not touch on 'useability' - build quality, feel, ergonomics, sound etc etc. And can't get basics right.

This is a frequent problem with online reviews of camera gear and software: The person doing the test does not fully understand the equipment or the program and, thus, cannot use it in an optimal fashion. So what you end up with is recommendations based on suboptimal testing condtions. Garbage in = garbage out.

Rob

[glanglois]

This is a frequent problem with online reviews of camera gear and software: The person doing the test does not fully understand the equipment or the program and, thus, cannot use it in an optimal fashion. So what you end up with is recommendations based on suboptimal testing condtions. Garbage in = garbage out.

Rob

"suboptimal" is quite tactful in this situation. I admire your restraint.

[XMACHINA]

Uluru wrote:

"Leica M9 has very similar ISO issues as the K-7, for example. After ISO 1600 it also produces 'noisy' images but no one is taking it so seriously not to recommend it as the premium photography tool. You must stay in queue to get one."

Taking your word as to the backordered status of the M9, I'd say that this has more to do with the relative small number of units produced than it does with the runaway popularity of the camera.

Furthermore, it could be argued that even an egregiously flawed Leica body will have its defenders: this was certainly the case with the M9's predecessor, the M8, which was known to suffer from inconsistent exposure, and color cast issues among other problems; people STILL insisted that it was a "premium photography tool" and railed against any criticism leveled against it.

The Online Photographer: Roundly and Soundly Slammed

"Once many newbies settle down their ISO demons and understand that photography life is often a much greater sum than all of its ingredients combined, there could still be hope for them."

Are you even aware of how utterly condescending this reads? More importantly, it's fallacious as "newbies" are not the only people who are interested using a camera with the best ISO performance available to them. In fact, it could be argued that concern over image noise is more readily found among experienced photographers; I find that "newbies" tend to be very uncritical of their own work.

"One thing is always certain: people will always find a perfect new excuse to trash a perfect chance to push their creativity beyond commodity, but won't do it because they're not serious about it and don't know what it entails."

How wonderfully elitist of you! Believe it or not, I'm really not trying to start a fight, but damn! Did you literally just step out of a fine arts photography lecture when you wrote this? Better question: were you the lecturer?

"That is because it's the mentality of a consumer who has investment in gear, and the photography is just an excuse for such an investment. Can't blame them -- it's the world of whiners we've created."

OK, now here you're just downright insulting--but, again, fallacious.

"When a perfect camera that delivers clean ISO 1 million comes, but only with 7fps, there'll be a problem because they'd actually need 8 fps at least."

I know of only one motive behind the construction of strawman arguments: that one finds the actual points made by one's opposition difficult to refute. You really can't think of why anyone other than a "newbie" or some other sort of vulgar commodity-monger would find it creatively advantageous to have 2 or more stops overhead before his/her images suffer from chroma blotches, reduction of tonal range, and myriad other problems associated with image noise? Nothing? Really? 'Kay.

So while one of the people who are presently demanding a Full-Frame Pentax body will talk about how "clean" ISO 6400 will allow her to shoot indoors with available light without unwanted motion blur, the rebuttal comes in the form of various non-arguments such as: "*I* am perfectly satisfied with the K-Whatever's performance."; "If you were a better technically skilled/artistically gifted/not so lazy a photographer, you wouldn't need what you're whining about." To these I add the most eloquently-worded condescension yet [and after all, condescension is best served eloquently]: "One thing is always certain: people will always find a perfect new excuse to trash a perfect chance to push their creativity beyond commodity, but won't do it because they're not serious about it and don't know what it entails."

Actually this could stand for some grammatical correction: as it reads now, people WON'T find a perfect excuse. But surely you understand that writing life is often a much greater sum than all of its ingredients combined, so why nitpick?

It's no easy task to fashion a reasonable argument for [even marginally] inferior image quality. But you, and many, many others have taken up the cause. I won't claim to know exactly why, but, as a great photographic artist once wrote "one thing is always certain": doing so will provide great opportunities to direct smugness and condescension at anyone who isn't satisfied with whatever they currently have; the trick to this is to ignore the actual reasons cited for the dissatisfaction, or to dismiss them as false without providing a shred of proof.

-XM